Forum:New Page Proposal: ME2 ammo types
I'd like to propose a new page which covers the different types of ammunition available in Mass Effect 2. Some of the areas that could be covered on this page include: •A brief description of each type of ammunition, including defense mitigation properties. •Links to each ammunition type's main page. •Side-by-side comparison of the different types of ammunition. •Guides for implementing different ammunition in combat. The notion struck me when I was deciding whether to dump all my points into any particular kind of ammunition. If this sounds like a page that could me community needs, I'd love to see it developed. I think it can be defended as a unique/non-redundant entry in light of the fact that it would provide unique information (namely, recommendations for the use of different ordnance in different scenarios and/or specific details about how the damage multipliers work/stack and compare to other types). If I was playing ME2 on a PC, I'd be able to help compile specific data for the page, but unfortunately I only have a copy for my XB0x 360. Brianbreed 22:16, August 26, 2011 (UTC) Comments After reading this over, I can say that I'm not supportive. This page would do nothing but duplicate content and have a lot of overlapping content with individual pages. We already have a page for each ammo power and implementing this project would create a lot of overlapping content with them. The way power pages are structured, especially the "Player Notes" section describes how to effectively use the power and on what. I don't think we remotely need this page because we'd end up with that massive amount of overlapping content. It also wouldn't just be overlap on the power pages, there would also be a lot overlapping content on the various enemy pages as well. Specifically the "Tactics" section where various powers are listed, and often, ammo as well. Putting all of it in one page will just end up being redundant and not provide a lot of useful information that is already present, and IMO, in much more appropriate places where the context of the information, is a lot better. Also not to mention things on the proposal aren't clear. What is meant by "Side-by-side comparison of the different types of ammunition"? Does this mean a comparison of their stats from the game? Or, given this statement, "If I was playing ME2 on a PC, I'd be able to help compile specific data for the page", does it mean that we pull data from the game and use that? To answer each one, the first one ends up being redundant. And the second wouldn't be allowed as interpretation of game data is considered speculation and is not permitted in articles. If there were to be a disamg page, then I'd support that, but what this proposes, I cannot support because of the redundancy and overlapping content on multiple pages and issues with clarity on certain points. Even if the second part is resolved, given the amount of overlapping content this would end up generating. Lancer1289 23:26, August 26, 2011 (UTC) :Then why not migrate all ammunition information to ONE page, and turn search terms like "Incendiary Ammo" into redirects to that particular subtopic on an ammunition host page? If we're going to talk efficiency, having five different "ammo" pages unnecessarily fragments data that a user might want to access quickly while playing the game. Some players may prefer hot-swapping between different types of ammunition to meet different circumstances in the game. Other players might want to know which ammo is best to preload on all weapons at the start of a mission. I'd like to see that data presented in a straightforward manner. :In summary, of course there would be some redundancy - which is normal for a top-layer of any type of information. But an ammunition hub would also provide unique information and cut down on browse time for anyone looking for information on the multiple types of ammo in-game. I know I for one don't want to dump points into the fourth tier of two different types of munition if, say, one type dealt 1x damage to shields and 2x to armor, while another type dealt 2x damage to shields, 1x to armor, and .75x to biotic barriers. :There are hubs for each type of weapon, as well as summaries for each of the different weapons in that category that outlink to broader descriptions (e.g., shotguns with links to M-22 Eviscerator. M-23 Katana, M-27 Scimitar, M-300 Claymore, and Geth Plasma Shotgun). I don't think the overlapping information on these types of page is a demerit; it gets you the most relevant data in a quick and easy-to-understand format. :Responding to the first paragraph. That is not how we do things here, nor will it be. Every talent and power warrants its own page describing the states, notes, and anything else about the power. They are not supposed to be redirects, nor will they be. This has been a standard since before I joined the wiki, and it will not be changing. It is the way things are done and having one page doesn't work as well as you might think. The page would end up being ridiculously long and the redirects don't work as well as you might think. Having the information on separate pages is a good way of keeping organization, and keeping a standard that has been set for about four years now. Each power, no matter what, gets its own page because it is something different. If we were to do this, then we should end up combining every other power, and need I mention that there are eleven different biotic powers, ten tech powers, and five combat powers? Grouping powers/talents by name and putting all of that information on one page is incredibly inefficient because of the resulting length. There would be way to much information to read through and pick out what is needed. :Responding to the second paragraph. We aren't talking about a small amount of redundancy, we'd be talking about a lot of redundancy. There'd be so much overlap that there just isn't a point to create a separate article without cutting huge swaths of information out of articles or duplicating so much information from even walkthrough articles, that the redundancy factor would be extreme. :Responding to the third paragraph. There aren't hubs for each weapon, each weapon, like each talent and power, has its own page, and each warrants its own page. What this proposes is further redundancy in terms of the information that will end up being duplicated. :Redundancy is all this page would end up being, and would also run counter to how we organize and display information here. Again I'd be supportive of a disamg page, but not of one page for so much information which would end up being long, and I'd say prohibitively long as to disenourage readers from reading. I also cannot support turning informative and organized pages into redirects when they would be the only exceptions to a rule that again has lasted for about four years now. Lancer1289 00:40, August 27, 2011 (UTC) :::You're throwing around the word "redundant" a lot. And yes, each category of weapon has its own page (Shotguns) that links out to more detailed information about every weapon in that category. So do Biotics and Tech. The pages include flavor text, lore, an explanation of the different kinds of power, and NONREDUNDANT outlinks to the various powers. Places where you spend talent points merit a summary. Ammo types are abilities you spec into; knowing how these work prior to spending talent points seems useful. On the plus side, we have a model for how to incorporate a hub (e.g., starting talent, unlockable, based on loyalty, advanced training), specific information and lore to consolidate, and things that separate pages cannot provide (e.g., in-line summaries of all types of this ability). On the downside, we have you saying the words "redundant," "overlapping," and "overlap" a grand total of thirteen times. This is being dismissed, not discussed. Brianbreed 06:47, August 27, 2011 (UTC) ::Because what you are proposing would be exactly that, redundant. Neither the tech or biotics page, which would fit more than weapon pages because of the content, do not go anywhere, even remotely, close to the detail you are talking about, nor should they. They list the various talents and powers, what classes can use them, and that is it. Period. There is no reason to list anything further because there is absolutely no need to. The various pages themselves are the ones that go into detail and that is where the detail should be. We don't need to repeat information, turn articles into redirect which runs counter to the standard that has been established, and go into massive detail on one page, resulting in an absolutely massive article, when the system we have already works. The individual pages are where the detail is and where it should be on a page covering a power, per the standard that has been established. If you look at the pages, you would see there is no summaries of all types of the power, no stats, no nothing of what you proposed. Therefore, the "model" you propose doesn't really exist as you think it does. The page would just end up being a bunch of single line sentences that area already accomplished by the pages themselves. I again state a disamg page would be much more appropriate in this case given the nature of what it will ultimately end up covering. ::Weapon pages are an entirely different story because they cover different content and don't try to say they cover the same thing because they don't. They are two completely separate entities that cover completely seperate content. You even said it yourself, "Ammo types are abilities" and abilities are not the same as weapons and fall into two completely separate categories. ::Also just to point out, "this is being dismissed, not discussed" is completely false. If it was being dismissed, would I have moved it into the appropriate forum? Would I keep discussing it? Would I keep pointing out problems? No, I would have just ignored it and maybe even deleted it. When you propose something, you have to be prepared for people to disagree with you and point out problems with the proposal. That is the way things work. No idea is perfect, and no matter how great you think the idea is, I can guarantee you that others won't think so. And just to say it, if something runs counter to how something has worked, and worked efficiently, then people will tend to have a problem with it. Especially when there is no system for what is being proposed. Lancer1289 04:18, August 27, 2011 (UTC) :::::The distinction between weapons and powers is interesting, but addressable. While the Biotics and Tech pages have limited detail on the particular powers, the weapons pages have significantly more information on the particular strengths of each weapon in the category. Ammunition falls between the two: it's technically a power, but it enhances the attributes of the weapons in the game. There are three core munitions as well as three unlockeable types, and their effects override each other. A strategy guide on how to use ammunition does NOT fit on any particular ammunition page; nor does it really fit in a class strategy guide. :::::But it is IMPORTANT to the way one approaches the game, at every level. A consolidated overview of different ammunition types would alert newer players to the possibility of overbuffing (e.g., Jacob uses Incendiary Ammo on a target you're pummeling with Cryo Ammo, your debuff falls off). It might help players trying to "plan ahead" to decide whether they should max out Incendiary Ammo and Disruptor Ammo, or (for example) to hurry up to complete Jack's loyalty mission to unlock squad Warp Ammo. I'd have never thought of using cryo ammo on a shotgun until someone pointed out on the Soldier Guide (Mass Effect 2) page that each PELLET counts as an individual application of the cryo debuff, and that it almost always kills unshielded husks. :::::There's a lot of information about how ammunition works that is not located on any ammunition page; the very fact that this conversation can be drawn out demonstrates how drastically these talents affect gameplay. The fact that they fall between weapons and other powers in terms of how one describes them makes them a unique issue, which is why neither of the previous two templates fit perfectly but both DO offer specific insight into how one could efficiently consolidate information. Brianbreed 06:47, August 27, 2011 (UTC) So, basically, you're proposing that we have a single page dedicated to ammo powers, just like we have a page dedicated to Assault Rifles? And that this Ammo Powers page would contain an outline of the relevant info/stats, just like a given weapons page, with links to each type of Ammo? If it were modeled on, say, the Assault Rifles page, such an Ammo Powers page would be quite helpful (saving the reader from those usually useless Wiki "searches"). However, "Player Notes" would be better off on the separate pages (again, just like the weapons pages; also compare the extant Shredder Ammo page). You could "Sandbox" an outline of your suggested page, for a visual. As for the PC-game files issue, or "interpreting game data" being rejected as "speculation": regardless of whether this means we'd have to abolish about half of the data on every weapon page, it is here a moot or mute issue: there is nothing (or nothing easily found) in the game files on the ammo powers anyway, that isn't already displayed for the player in-game. --AnotherRho 01:39, August 28, 2011 (UTC) :Let me point out a flaw. "This means we'd have to abolish about half of the data on every weapon page" is incorrect. Every piece of remaining data on the weapon pages is accurate and sourced from the devs themselves. There was other data before, but it was removed because it was ruled speculation. So acutally nothing would change as everything is sourced. Lancer1289 01:51, August 28, 2011 (UTC) I would oppose this proposal because I think it would be redundant with the ammo power articles themselves. There's plenty of room on them in the Player Notes sections to explain why X Power would be better to use than Y Power. Also, if we make a page for Ammo Powers, odds are someone else down the line will demand similar articles for Biotic Powers and Tech Powers and so on. I strongly believe that arbitrary guides should be kept to a minimum here. -- Commdor (Talk) 02:28, August 28, 2011 (UTC) : Maybe someone will, maybe they won't, ask for such pages. But why don't we then get rid of the weapon-class pages? They are redundant in exactly the same way. -- AnotherRho 03:06, August 28, 2011 (UTC) ::Yeah that's a no go, and they are not redundant, or not in the context you may be thinking. Those pages do a lot more than what this page, or those pages ever would. And either way, the four weapons from Mass Effect would still have their own pages due do them having abilities. The weapon pages do more than a power page would, and are also in a different context than powers, which are two completely different gameplay elements. Deleting those pages, and creating what is proposed, would do no one any favors. Again I'd be supportive of a disamg page for ammo, which I can see, but not a separate page. Lancer1289 04:43, August 28, 2011 (UTC) :::I keep trying to make this point: ammunition powers are a hybrid between weapons and abilities. They're classified as abilities; they directly affect the way weapons are used. Still the word "redundant" comes up. Here's redundancy: "the repetition of useless or unneeded information." Quoting the tooltips for each type of ammo twice? That's redundant. Noting that certain munitions are more effective with certain weapons? Not redundant. Listing the damage modifiers of assault rifles on an assault rifles hub, as well as on pages for each weapon? Not redundant, even though it's repetitive. Consolidating the information about damage modifiers for each respective ammunition on one page? Not redundant, even though it's repetitive. Do you guys see that there's unique information on the table here, or at least miscategorized information? Why should information about how cryo ammo stacks with a shotgun be on a Soldier Guide (Mass Effect 2) page instead of a page about the relevant power? Why should a person have to click through to every ammo type to decide which they want to use? Brianbreed 04:54, August 28, 2011 (UTC)